3
$\begingroup$

Background

Two common ways of defining what an Evolutionary Stable Strategy (ESS) are:

First definition: Consider a population composed of populations playing two strategies, $\mathbf{p}$ and $\mathbf{q}$. Let us denote $W(\mathbf{p})$ the average fitness of the strategy $\mathbf{p}$. A population consisting of individuals playing $\mathbf{p}$ will be an ESS if, whenever a small amount of deviant individuals playing $\mathbf{q}$, the old type $\mathbf{p}$ fares batter than the newcomers $\mathbf{q}$. This means that for all $\mathbf{p}\neq \mathbf{q}$, \begin{equation} W(\mathbf{p}) > W (\mathbf{q}) \end{equation}

Second definition: $E(\mathbf{p},\mathbf{q})$ is the payoff for $\mathbf{p}$-strategist against a $\mathbf{q}$-strategist. The strategy $\mathbf{p}$ is an ESS if and only if the following conditions are satisfied:

  1. $E(\mathbf{p},\mathbf{p})\geq E(\mathbf{q},\mathbf{p}) \quad \forall \mathbf{q}$

  2. If $\mathbf{q}\neq \mathbf{p}$ and $E(\mathbf{p},\mathbf{p}) = E(\mathbf{q},\mathbf{p})$, then $E(\mathbf{p},\mathbf{q})> E(\mathbf{q},\mathbf{q})$

Question (shorter version)

The above two ways of defining what an ESS should be equivalent. How can I prove such an equivalence? Alternatively, do you know of a book (or a paper) that has this proof?

Question (longer version)

I understand that the first definition implies the second. According to the first definition: \begin{align*} W(\mathbf{p}) - W (\mathbf{q}) &>0\\ (1-\epsilon) [E(\mathbf{p},\mathbf{p}) - E(\mathbf{q},\mathbf{p})] + \epsilon [E(\mathbf{p},\mathbf{q}) - E(\mathbf{q},\mathbf{q})] &>0 \end{align*} where $\epsilon$ is frequency of individuals playing $\mathbf{q}$. Since $0<\epsilon<1$, if the above inequality is true, the conditions 1 and 2 in the second definition must be true. The part that I find less clear is how the second definition implies the first definition. More specifically, that if $\mathbf{p}$ is a strict Nash equilibrium (i.e., $E(\mathbf{p},\mathbf{p})> E(\mathbf{q},\mathbf{p})$), then $W(\mathbf{p}) > W (\mathbf{q})$.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Aren't these definitions applicable to different models of evolution? It seems like the first is applicable in a case where each strategy has, regardless of the other strategies, a known distribution of payoffs. The second seems to have a payoff which is dependent not only on the strategy but also on the other players' strategy. If they are different models, I am not sure what it means to be equivalent. $\endgroup$ – Hans Dec 12 '15 at 4:20
  • $\begingroup$ @Hans The equivalence between these defs is mentioned in a few textbooks, such as p.232 of Gintis Game Theory Evolving and on p. 63 of Hofbauer & Sigmund's Evolutionary Games and Population Dynamics. $\endgroup$ – falsum Dec 12 '15 at 4:40
1
$\begingroup$

We need to show that if $\mathbf{p}$ is a strict Nash equilibrium, $E(\mathbf{p},\mathbf{p})> E(\mathbf{q},\mathbf{p})$, then $W(\mathbf{p}) > W (\mathbf{q})$ for some sufficiently small $\epsilon$. When $E(\mathbf{p},\mathbf{q}) \geq E(\mathbf{q},\mathbf{q})$, $\mathbf{p}$ clearly dominates $\mathbf{q}$.The less obvious case is when $E(\mathbf{p},\mathbf{q}) < E(\mathbf{q},\mathbf{q})$.

Since $E(\mathbf{p},\mathbf{p}) - E(\mathbf{q},\mathbf{p})>0$, there should be a strictly positive number $k$ such that $$k[E(\mathbf{p},\mathbf{p}) - E(\mathbf{q},\mathbf{p})]+ E(\mathbf{p},\mathbf{q}) - E(\mathbf{q},\mathbf{q})>0$$ is true. Whatever this number is, we can write $k$ as $(1-\epsilon)/\epsilon$ for $0<\epsilon<1$. Substituting this into the equation above gives us the desired result.

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.